That's simply not true. On their official rules page, it lists the judges for the contest. In addition to the President of TPCi and a few Directors of the TCG, there are members of the Illustration team, Art Design Team, Art Director, Senior Art Director, four names Illustrators, and a special judge, the National Craft Museum Director. To say that "non artists" are judging this contest is simply untrue, and a quick scroll through the official rules page disproves that claim.
"I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes," ~Joanna Maciejewska
Best part is AI wasn't allowed: but non-artists judged it and couldn't tell the difference :) actual talented artists losing out to super garbage is just disgusting. I hope they reconsider and recount.
@spidernoir9845 no it itsnt better than a lot of artists because it still has imperfections and let's not forget ai art generators steal from other artists art😐
@spidernoir9845 The whole point of competition was to create a chance for artists to have their art placed on a card. if they wanted to have just a cool artwork, they would hire an artist.
@@spidernoir9845 Ummmmm probably because the system was purposefully fed the work of specific, legendary artists to mash together ? You shlt on real artists AS IF AI imagery-cobbling would even EXIST without these people who were ROBBED. Stuld sIut.
Digital art contests should have a requirement to send in their PSD files for proof that contestants actually drew it themselves. There’s no way that AI images can win with that. Problem solved
@@lochelcyanide639 Take progress photos then. If you are doing a painting, take a photo at the halfway mark. If you are doing a clay figure, take a photo of the base shape before you start adding details. It can be doable.
Imagine if that AI artist won, and then the judges say "We wanna see how you draw your art Live, for all the Pokemon lovers out there". That AI artist is going straight downhill from there.
Omg that actually is a really cool idea. Obviously in the context of here it’s “oh, we’re exposing “ai artists””, but it would also be a way to engage with the community more directly with a joint livestream. Maybe even go all the way and let them show up on stage with official pokemon artists and have like a joint art piece as a memorabilia of the event.
This is so disappointing. AI generated imagery shouldn't even be allowed to be referred to as "art", because it isn't. Don't let people who generate AI images refer to themselves as artists. This person is clearly cheating by means of using name variations, but also, taking good slots from more deserving ACTUAL artists.
@@DLAXTOX might as well call yourself a chef when you put a frozen dinner in the microwave. Yes it's still "food" but you are no "chef" for microwaving a frozen dinner.
I've always been very specific in referring to AI Generated images as images or imagery, rather than as art. "AI art" is just a misleading term, It implies artistry, it assumes effort that wasn't there.
@@DLAXTOX that would've been a good comparison if you were actually cooking something. You aren't. You're making the equivalent of instant ramen or microwave hamburger. You're simply typing in words/numbers to have the machine do it for you. You would be more akin to a client than anything.
@@DLAXTOX It's not. There is no skill, effort, or talent involved in typing words into a box, nor is there anything "artistic" about a computer algorithm scumming google and other image sources, taking multiple images that it doesn't even have permission to use, and slapping pieces of them together into a soulless amalgamation of pixels to make something vaguely resembling "art". AI generated imagery is not art, and people who type words into a generator are not artists. Your comparison to cooking also falls horrendously short, as has already been pointed out.
At this point making fun and roasting AI artists is an art form itself Like oh hey watch me put this AI bro to shame with professor grammar, eerily dramatic poetry and peak comedy
Yep, but ai steal arts from someone else/other artist, so technically we making fun of the original artist. How ai steal? Well Idk how to explain, but i once don't know anything about ai and i wanted to try, so i put my drawing to the ai And.... boom! Ai steals my art!
To be fair plenty of people will just haphazardly throw out the "your art looks AI" accusation because they don't fully understand what makes it look like AI. Even then, that can be really damning for new artists. I think it's good she made sure she wasn't giving people the wrong impression. It's important to remind people to keep nuance in mind. Plus this is clearly meant to be a teaching moment, so...yeah. gotta be an effective teacher.
Not only did this person generated their entries through AI, but they circled around the "max 3 entries per person" rule by submitting with DIFFERENT NAMES that are still awfully similar so, like, I'm speechless about their level of disrespect for the whole contest and other contestants. Wtf
OH MY HECK. thank you so much @Katliente for showing my Eevee piece!! as well as bringing attention to the issue and trying to show people what to look for with AI art!
As someone who almost entered this contest and spent a month just coming up with concepts alone, it absolutely pisses me off that this person not only very clearly broke the 3 submissions rule, but used AI slop to do it, and then managed to take top spots from legitimately talented people who are infinitely more deserving. I don't think hating on artists is ever ok, however, this person clearly isn't an artist. Call them a scammer, a grifter, whatever you want, but they are NOT an artist. It might be a bit harsh to say, but I genuinely think one of the only ways to stop this bullshit from pushing down real talented people is to relentlessly call them out for it. Never let them live this down, make them the example. EDIT: I'd like to quote a passage from the official rules page for this contest: "Any attempt, successful or otherwise, by any Entrant to obtain more than the permitted number of Submissions by using multiple and/or different identities, forms, registrations, addresses or any other method will void all of that Entrant’s Submissions and that Entrant may be disqualified at Sponsors’ reasonable discretion." This person is in clear violation, and as such ALL of their submissions should accordingly be disqualified. I'd also like to point out that this contest isn't JUST to have your art made into a real card. There are actual cash prizes for the winners, as laid out on their official rules page. Grand Prize gets $5,000, Best Standard and Best ex Illustrations get $3,000, 6 First Place Runners Up get $1,000, and 15 Judge's Award Winners get $500. So not only are they violating the rules, but they are potentially taking away real cash prizes from people actually deserving of them. Don't think this is JUST some silly card contest.
yeah ugh it's so frustrating! i showed some artists pieces and they clearly looked so thought out and detailed and must've taken so long...and then there's this guy ;-;
I feel like people also don't understand that those people actually steal from others because an AI only functions with input (input from other drawings of other artists). So this person wasn't actually just violating the rules and taking away price money from actual artists, they actually scammed with stolen art which, in my opinion, is just unfair and disgusting. Use it for personal stuff, I don't care about that but don't make it commercial or call yourself an "artist" with stolen art.
I spent months as well working on stuff. I didn’t have time to finish and gave up on it, glad I didn’t waste my time and I certainly won’t enter any in the future.
@@mrs.quills7061 I'd love to enter in the future, but only if TPCi acknowledges this issue and actively works to make sure it doesn't happen in the future. Which let's be real, they probably won't.
i mean if ai art is beating legit artists whenthere is so much to criticize that says alot. A good artist should have no issue creating something better than ai. Now while i agree they should be banned and ai art has no place in competitions and should be watermarked its crazy that its on top lol. While i thought the AI art did look awesome there is so much better art that didnt make it that i would vote for. Imo these contests should be voted on byy the people instead of judges and stuff like this would be spotted.
even if it wasn’t AI simply going over the entry limit should get them disqualified at this point, thats whats really getting me even non-artist judges can look at these names an go “wait…🤨”
True but I'm curious how many Other entries are AI. I'm thinking the only reason Vigo here was caught, was because Real artist's spotted the AI pieces and realized a Deja Vu moment multiple times with the name similarities. So there's probably other scammers on there that submitted the 3 pieces, but are actually AI pieces. Also, are Actual artist's of the PTC company analyzing over these submissions or is it Also AI "checking" the artwork/AI pieces? Like how RUclips has AI "checking" reported videos and comments and nothing Actually gets done about a problem. 😑
@@LittleParody that's expect if we are looking for a particular art method or style. it gets the idea across perfectly and that is, what matters🤷🏿♂🤷🏿♂
@@JArt872 AI images are Generated, not rendered. there is a huge difference between Generation and Rendering. Generated images comes from Noise and algorithms. Rendered (or image syntesis) images comes from 2d or 3D modelated simulators that turn them into photo realistic or non realistic images.
Can we STOP calling AI images "art". ART by definition is the following: the expression or application of HUMAN creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Ai can NOT create art, it just imitates it. AI "artists" are not artist. They arent even innovative. They are imitators looking for an easy way out of hard work and dedication...
thank you so much for featuring my card artworks!! i did the eevee with the croissant/flygon with the clover/magician absol!! one of my followers let me know i was in your video, this was such a lovely treat to see. you are very well spoken and kind ^_^
Tbh, this competition organizer and judges are the problem here. Not apparently understanding any art is one thing, the fact they didn't vet the name, the scrutiny on the art quality and inconsistency, that is a far bigger crime
@@nah-e9o yeah, you :p considering you are probably not good enough to be an artist, not good enough to use an ai and not even good at saying something witty 😂
I'm a digimon TCG player, don't really do Pokémon. But that first Eevee on the cushion should have made it. That is a TCG illustration if I've ever seen one. Just the thought of a Terriermon, Lopmon, maybe even a Gatomon, drawn like that for an alt art? It would be a winners prize at locals. So many of these were just amazing for card arts and it's genuinely upsetting they didn't make it. I can just imagine how awesome that first Absol would look as a foil. And the Feraligator! Alligators carry their babies in their mouths and on their heads, so it's actually putting the pokemon in a real life setting.
Agreed! I’m not super into the DCG (my only card is a Guilmon I got at a shop with my brother because it’s my favorite Digimon), but seeing adorable card art online like Meicoomon and Morphomon makes me appreciate cozier artwork. I’ve always loved the cuter looking cards, and I remember back around Gen 6, there would be cards with little charms on the side with the description at the bottom telling a little story from the Pokémon’s perspective. That Eevee should’ve gotten in! It could’ve fit with those so well (if they still do those)!
I play the DCG on and off and focus on the PTCG, but the absolute quality of the card art in the DCG is insane! Pokémon sure has stepped up their game these past few years but the people at digimon are not playing. Stunning card after stunning card
looking at ai images made me think now of how my math teacher would say "i want to see how you got to the answer not just the answer in itself". when i see art i dont just see the finished picture but i also try and see the steps of how it was made, ig i cant help but to do that as an artist myself xD. and so i find myself thinking when i see an odd looking picture "if i were to draw something similar would i draw it like that?". and when i see tracers who make fake sketches, im like 'but where are the guidelines?'.
exactly! I like art because theres someone behind it. It’s enjoyable to look at the art because you can actually dissect the artists choices and style, and understand why they would draw certain things a certain way. Its enjoyable because you can see and know the amount of work that goes into it. And often times they will share their work in progresses etc which i love The years of practice and observation it takes to even do a simple sketch is what makes it art Ai art is so soulless
I also like to say that current AI algorithms don't strictly know what anything "is" so much as what it "looks like", because for the most part they are _explicitly_ getting trained on finished results.
just a question in this scenario : would you rather do complex math by writing out lines one by one to 'show your work', or by using a calculator that will give you a roughly correct answer in 5 seconds? I would say both, why deny the calculator? Even if you're trying to get the 'perfect answer' and can't trust the calculator, it can still be useful in the process. There seems to be a lot of misplaced hate towards the 'ai' and its users imo.
Honestly a stupid easy way to avoid this kind of stuff in contests is to just- ask for screenshots of the layers of the art program when submitting or even the file itself? Im suprised that with the recent surge in AI stuff that isnt considered as a method to make sure people like this don't slip into spaces for ACTUAL artists (and by this, i mean people who create the work themselves. Doesnt matter how skilled you are, if youre making the work yourselves than I have a hell of a lot more respect for you than people who just plug stuff into AI to try and get undeserved rewards. o7 Good luck on your art journeys ya'll)
That’s why some companies in Japan will ask artists for analog artworks that way they can be certain that the artist can actually draw. There are even some companies that require you to draw on spot. Same goes for art university. You are literally required to draw its part of the exam.
@@linboh2664 Oh yeah, I know. Going to an art university right now actually! It's pretty infuriating to see some of the teachers there promoting this AI stuff
@@Vipadra I’m in an art school as well not university but it’s a lot more tech focused with us learning 3d CG, video editing, photoshop, photography, programming, and etc. Yes teachers do encourage us to use AI but more as a tool to help us do things more efficiently helping us cut time down on unnecessary but time consuming tasks. But beyond that they don’t recommend using AI. Also AI art is pretty easy to spot for a professional artist even non artists can point out certain disfigurement like the infamous AI hands for example. I also wanted to use some artworks as reference and looked up on SNS only to find an AI illustration that literally did not make any sense anatomy wise. I tried tracing the artwork to try and figure out the logic behind it only to realize that there was none.
They don't request upon submission. What they do is request when they are doing the final rounds of judging. The reason is because the working file shows a lot with process, and basically shows a lot of the "secrets" to how they work (if there are any), plus other things such as assets that can be ripped off and used elsewhere. You don't typically offer these things up without some type of an exchange/benefit. The fewer people contests do this to, the better. WiP layer screenshots are a bit more common for preliminary checks if someone is trying to lay accusations of stealing someone else's work, but that's when you get things like social media and forums for people to start flinging mud around
@@linboh2664AI illustrations aren't discouraging for people in art school because it's used in said art school. They're discouraging for people in art school because it's basically like going to school to be a telephone operator or attendant at a full service gas station.
The biggest issue with those contests is how it's all about the flashiest visuals rather than the general feel of the art. That circle absol that didn't make it looks *insane* and reminds me a lot of some of my favorite cards to collect (there's a super fuzzy and stylized absol and I love it so much) so many of the "losing" entries have so much going for it, but the AI messes have the most flair at a glance I'm so happy you uploaded this and talked about other entries as well!
I would put every single piece of artwork through an Ai art check. A girl in my group submitted AI art for our project because she was too lazy to do the work herself.
Those detectors are not completely accurate; in fact they're often inaccurate, and lots of real, legitimate artists have been dogpiled now because people just run a thing through Hive and go "Oh, okay, that's true then."
While I agree, I've seen actual artists put their art through AI detectors and it comes out as a positive--because people used their art to train models :') sadly it won't do much
this person probably snuck in even more entries before they picked the 300 entries, they just picked 6 out of who knows how many. it not only sucks that they were picked and other artists weren't, but any tcg art contests going forward, there are going to be artists who will be skeptical on how much time/consideration/discernment each entry gets or if the judges even care. I understand that they get flooded with entries, but they also had months to go through them
This dude also just blatantly stole some fanart of the Vaporeon in the drowning Eevee pic, people have found the original in the comments of that original twitter threat. And speaking of that AI image, why is that eevee shooting a light beam from it's paws?? lmao
It's insane. Would people have caught on if he hadn't used the same (or similar) name for the submissions? The fact that we need artists to tell us what's wrong and show us the telltale signs reveals how easily people can be deceived by AI art. I mean, in all honesty, those pieces look great. I am no artist, nor do I know anything about art, but my first impression was "Pretty."
I think most people can tell from a glance if something is suspicious. I'm at best an amateur artist (wouldn't even call myself that). But there is just an uncanny look to AI art.
these would definitely have been caught, they just look too ai, but unfortunately, even now i’m wondering if other ai arts under a different name made it in 🥲 the ones ive looked at look amazing and very human at least!
For a layman, there are lot of ways to prove an AI. - Check if the fingers digits are correct - Check if there are obviously disjointed lineart somewhere despite the level of polish of the image - Check if some parts melds or melts into each other like hair or clothes. - Check for pattern seizures, where repeated patterns forced to places it shouldn't belong - Check for pixelated artifacts, artists tends to use the same tool and method across an image so it shouldn't have weird QR codes or mosaic censors over a gradient - Check if the formatting is weird. I spotted a japanese artist where they did well on the image photobashing but screwed making a rectangular magazine format where it blends and diffuses as AI does it - Check for patterns and it's center of mass/vocal point. I seen AI did well on mimicking floral patterns but failed on structuring it like a flower should, having a flower core and petal convergence. - Check for composition. An artist took creative liberties but not to an extent making it literally practically impossible to mimic. One example from the famous Willy Wonka scam House of Illuminati, the banquets in their reference are physically impossible to navigate or to enjoy or to physiologically imagine to attend. - Check for background character anatomy. Artist do skip these because it's not an object of focus, but not to a degree it's monstrously anatomically incorrect. - Check for periphery objects. Outside object of focus, AI tried to mimic how Artists reduces or mutes the side objects, but it comes with the expense of diffusing the vocal point and destroyed gradation. - The easiest of all is their background check. If they appear out of nowhere and have no credit or signs of throwaway account, it's AI. If they do have credits or referrals or backlog of links to their portfolio including their previously bad drawings, it's and Artist. Artists watches each others back. Words spread. It's something AI bros never understand or willing to accept with their "DiSrUpT ThE MaRkEt" agenda. I seen it myself during my IT university years. It's revolting.
I only accept ai art the same way I accept game modding: personal use only that doesn't affect ANYONE. I draw the line at using it to compete with actual artists through commissions or contests
Problem is that using ai image generators even for personal use still harms artists and enables art and image theft and copyright infringement. You're still telling the developers you want to use their image generation service and therefore you're okay with them wasting water, stealing images and ignoring copyright laws "because ai fun hehe" (it's literally their argument in court, while people are losing their jobs and scammers are thriving)
Also a thing most people forget. Artist made art from a blank canvas. AI generator made art from FINISHED image. I'm pretty sure every artist I know can reverse engineer an image. Artists are just held on a wildly higher standard compared to their detractors.
I don't believe it's accurate to claim that AI generators necessarily generate results "from" their training datasets (as in, from any _specific_ example), but due to the sheer scale of computations involved (on both the pre-training AND generative ends alike) it's almost impossible to semantically "decode" how the computational network actually generates anything specific.
@@Stratelier They're essentially doing advanced photobashing using points that are recognized as "eye", "nose", mouth", "hair", etc, with various tags. Imagine if I fed you a crapton of Minecraft custom item model code, and you don't get to see it in engine, I just tell you "this worked" or "this didn't work", and you basically learn from trial and error that this bit of code makes XYZ wider, that one makes it taller, this other one is a rotation point. You'll never actually know what the heck you spit out, just if someone is happy with the numbers you gave them, or which numbers they didn't want, with a huge reference of OTHER number sets that get called something like "Baglorble" and "Rirituly"-- you don't understand the language OR what your numbers look like to someone else, you just understand that when someone asks for a baglorble with a rirituly-shaped shothrat, you need to put this set of numbers on that set of numbers (after removing a few numbers that are associated with "shothrat"). That's how machine learning does image recognition and spits out more images.
i dont know how plausible this would be, ive never been in art competitions. but if/when someone makes it to the semi finals/finals; i think we should start asking the artists to hand over their project files for competition entries. it's literally the only way i can think of how to check if the art is AI generated. like i doubt AI scammers would bother making like photoshop or clip studio files for any reason
There are definitely cases where it's not plausible. For certain physical competitions you can make a physical print of the digital artwork, much like how with online competitions you _necessarily_ must submit a digital copy (scan/photo) of an otherwise physical artwork.
I'm leery of AI checkers because they aren't accurate a concerning amount of the time. We really need a way that isn't machine learning itself to test for machine learning.
i agree, but i think the content of this video (and her other videos) are very accurate. as a professional artist, she has a lot of experience that is helpful in spotting ai, *AND* she emphasizes that only with multiple examples of ai-esque mistakes or tells are you able to say with certainty that an image is ai generated. duchess celestia has a great video (how to spot ai art) about this that i think you might be interested in
@@lit_kzh Ya I think at best these are edge cases of either assisted works or works from popularly sampled artists. I myself am okay at identifying faked images but I also don't put much stock into it unless there's meta evidence (multiple works, past history, no history, etc.) And worst comes to worst I as a casual observer can just block anything that even remotely seems like it was fake and move on.
@@Yokolite94 Nah they can fake those too. You can directly generate (either officially in Adobe or unofficially in other products) and save as a workfile or just keep the generation to the invisible planning stages. That's honestly the worst part of this all. Not only is it antithetical to the creative process, but you can camo it in so many ways that this is going to be a new entry in the tech sector Whack-a-mole-a-thon.
@@RobertStoll ai art generation is so disappointing. on one hand, i'm excited to see it grow and become more accurate, more useful to artists, more fun, etc. on the other hand, i detest its affect on literally everything it touched after the first dall-e demos, and i hate that its profitable and is both devaluing artists and taking away their opportunities. overall i think its a huge net negative to human creativity and it seems to only get worse, i can only hope for a better future
19:26 a real artist most likely would make a big c shape, then cut with the eraser, why would you take the effort to make then separatedly? like it makes no sense
There's also a very good chance it's traced, the artist whose art was traced posted their Vaporeon art and the AI one is near identical in pose and linework (but worse looking)
Honestly I'm appaled these ""artworks"" were approved, because even pretending they're real art, they still don't fit the requirement for the portrayed Pokemon to be completely compliant with the canon design. As you pointed out, Eevee doesn't have the right amoung of spikes on the inside of one ear in the cherry blossoms pic, and the spike on the bottom part of its ears in the mountains picture also are a big mistake that makes it look more like a Jolteon. I'm shook they'd approve artworks that aren't fit for one of the rules they themselves established for entries.
I think the biggest giveaway that it's ai art is it's so insanely "polished". The one thing that makes me instantly detect something as ai art is when there's this full insanely skillful rendered artwork and then there's little random art mistakes on the hands, eyes, tail, etc. Yes, artists can get lazy and mess up. But someone who can show THAT much skill 4 times in a row isn't going to blob up humans and mess up pikachu's 4 fingered hand.
What astounds me is that they most likely had 4 accounts sending things, so 12 entries… And still none of it was caught. Am also disappointed there hasn’t been a proper statement on this…
I wager that Rob Liefeld is a good example for great rendering and horrific anatomy made by a human artist. Funny part is that he illustrated for Marvel, so he achieved what AI artists can't: actual financial success and artistic recognition.
@@f0kes32 who says no one cares? they are a lot of artists an other people that care a lot and are exposing people who abuses the use of ai and making tools of recognition of ai art and to protect artist drawings from it. Also why being rude with people that are doing nothing wrong?
i hate it because from what ive seen its just "Hey there's AI artists in the pokemon competition. anyways heres my art that didnt get in" and then they show the most beautiful delectable art piece with the best quality your eyes have ever perceived
The barely different, vaguely Russian sounding pen names are also a pretty big giveaway. I bet those were AI generated too. Probably ran a bot to generate all of it and enter automatically.
honestly? this fiasco may be my push to finally learn drawing, primarily cuz I've wanted to do it for a while, but now more than ever with an added layer of spite for AI art bros
Not me noticing that 'Khachadoorian' is the same name as a character from 'most popular girls in school' LMAO Ashley , what are you doing submitting AI pokemon art to a contest?? You're supposed to be watching the door!!
The AI Art Companies need to do their own watermark to show off the handiwork of the AI Art AND make the watermark as hard to edit out as possible. A photo won an AI Art contest before it got disqualified for being too real. So, ideas are possible.
The problem is, there isn't just one program that makes AI images, there are many, and they would hardly do that, and it's very unlikely that any big AI company will do that either, they end up losing customers
@@Cuyite can y’all relax 💀 it’s not perfect drawings but I didn’t realise I was in the presence of an art master cause If you think some of the flaws it made was bad try looking at regular people’s art like 💀
@@princeapoopoo5787 can y’all relax 💀 it’s not perfect drawings but I didn’t realise I was in the presence of an art master cause If you think some of the flaws it made was bad try looking at regular people’s art like 💀
Update - The Pokemon Company just released a statement that confirms that some entries violated the contest rules and will be disqualifying them. They have not yet specified who will be removed from the top 300 and the alleged artwork is still on the contest website. But at least the company is moving forward with finding real artists to replace the AI entries.
The thing is, human art has a soul. You can see that there's emotion behind it. Ai art is just so,so wrong. It's dead, empty, uncanny valley vibe. Even the mistakes in human art are human. Like, they make sense! The mistakes in ai don't. Ai art makes me feel sad :(
That Vaporeon in the V-K art is STOLEN from an actual artist. It isn't their actual style. That is art from a legit artist that was stolen by V-K for their AI submission. This will probably be lost in a sea of comments, but whoever sees this: please please please show the artist who drew the Vaporeon support. They did not know or consent to their art being stolen.
I think this is the prompters actual style. They just used an AI filter to "render" their artwork. I have seen some random guy's channel who posted his "process" who did exactly that
@filiprafaelcichonski2948 I wish I could link the account but it'll get deleted. But the artist for the Vaporeon made a tweet saying their art was stolen for AI and they never entered the contest.
The one that broke my heart was the artist that fully needle felted the pokemon and made a background set for a flygon card art submission and it was GORGEOUS
After a certain point, art/music/game development contests are going to start REQUIRING recorded footage of creating your submissions so that they can look through that of selected winners for verification.
@@thegiftedfire3470 the issue is what they're supposed to do if those sketches are created by tracing though. Without seeing the WHOLE thing be made, there's no way of knowing for sure
For non-artists who want to tell what is AI, the video I watched before this did a simple trick: use the dropper tool and hover over the colors, specifically the highlights. If you see the colors drastically changing across the color spectrum- colors that no real person would even think of choosing, it’s gotta be AI. For example, hovering over Eevee who is mostly orange and yellow, and the dropper detects blue or purple or green
I think art contests nowadays (especially for digital art) should require their wip images or some sort of proof that they actually did it. My art prof always reminds us to send her the final image with the raw files since she wants to know who actually does the art and who is just using ai to create in our class.
Specially people who use AI and try to pass it as handmade one. If you want to create AI without gaining money and more of a curiosity putting the prompts , well, whatever. As long as you don't consider yourself at the same level as actual artists and you support them somehow. But they tried to win a contest using that. You didn't do it, it was a machine and machines can't compete with real people, it's demented. I saw dudes saying that actual artists are dumb for doing art and that we all should get erased and replaced with AI instead of being a tool or another medium (like it happened with digital art, since traditional artists still exist and they are well recognised and appreciated). They are one of the worst types of AI bros
Artists are deliberate. Someone who's spent any time making backgrounds, excessively render, master line work and compose a shot in fish eye - every single stroke, the artist would be aware of - especially if they're in a HUGE contest with a massive sample size. Every stroke of a brush is made and the artist has to make effort to put pen on paper. Someone who's making a 'deeper meaning' art piece would have drawn more attention to the person that's up in the rafters, if they were the trainer.. they'd make it clear.
It's so fucking disheartening how you can not look at art nowadays anymore and get excited at how cool or pretty it looks, because of how high the chances are that some dumb asshole made the plagarism bot spit it out in 20 seconds. It takes away so much of the fun that art used to bring me
The difference between a human beginner and between AI is that a human makes mistakes because of their skill level, AI makes logic mistakes like combining completely nonsensical things like fading a hand into the face, or just not understanding space and treating an overlapped element as two elements. Sure a human can make some of these mistakes, but they aren't making logic mistakes because they don't understand that a hand isn't apart of the face.
The sad part is how no one in the comitee cares enough to actually check the art. Artist put hours, days into their entry. Contest hosts way too often prove, that they don't care... AI is just the small problem. The huge problem is that they were able to sneak in 6... 6! entries and no one cared to check. All the articles being angry at AI, when we should be more angry that someone gave in 6 entries and the hosts didn't care to look at possibly any of the 300 entries for more than just a second...
As impressive as AI "art" might look at first, it can't fake proper fundamentals. No matter how much people will try, proper art has structure, even if you're a beginner artist that's still something you will have no matter how you approach your art
The most annoying and dangerous part is people disregarding it as not even being art of good, there will come a time when it will be virtually indistinguishable from art created by real human artists because it is stolen from real artists. The "mostakes" could be used to describe actual drawing ls made by a human
I kept hearing people say "AI art has no soul" and I did not quite understand what they meant by "soul." But this video helped me understand. When art has soul, it's about how each element in the piece has intent behind it, how someone added an element in the piece to communicate additional meaning-- thusly creating a dialogue between the artist and the viewer. The AI art might look pretty on the surface, but, especially in the background elements, items are added in without the intent to convey an idea. Like you pointed out, what is the point in adding the drowning Luvdisc? The random person in the lights? These details add nothing to the piece, or even muddle the effect of the final piece. Contrast that to the backgrounds in all the other human-made art you shared, the sleeping Eevee is by a sun-dappled window with a gently flowing curtain to convey the comfortable environment. The snow in the Absol piece was deliberately drawn in a circular pattern to add motion that communicates the dynamic movements of Absol's swipe. Appreciate this video for providing a definition to the word "soul" in terms of art. It gave me a lot to think about, as an artist myself.
AI ""artists"" taking away opportunities from the same people who drew to power the algorithms that make their images in the first place is so upsetting and disappointing. Unfortunately many non-artists aren't as critical of shit like this bc they don't know what to look for or what distinguishes computer slop from digital artwork 💔
In competitions such as these, I feel like a requirement for providing some type of documentation alongside the art piece (such as a video, art file, or collection of screenshots, etc) in which the process of the artwork can be seen as it is being worked on, would help cut down on the amount of AI Imagery quite a bit.
I assumed the person was skilled enough to edit some parts to fix the obvious errors, especially for an intermediate eye, but no matter how much they try, the overall image and those similar names just sus
In addition to what you said, in the "Drowning Eevee" picture, if you look at vaporeon the shading of it makes it feel almost flat and almost after-thoughty compared to how the eevee is rendered. And both pictures that have an added 'vaporeon' seem to have that quality. Even the lovediscs seem to be in a different style/rendering.
As an artist this hurts my art soul. I've seen so many AI art pages gets so much recognition to the point where ppl prefer it over actual artist who spend hours just to be overlooked by a non artistic person using AI. It's very discouraging...
Another sad element of this is all the artists who spent hundreds and thousands of hours learning how to draw, that these AI submissions are stealing elements from without crediting those artists. The submissions you showed that didn't get in are far more full of life and character than the generic AI images
They wouldn't if those artists were good, the only people that are bothered about ai are the ones that are mediocre and try to feel better by saying they put "effort" on their art
Even if the judges couldn't tell if the entries were AI or not, they could at least tell that there were a number of other violations. For one, anyone could submit a limited number of entries, and the same Pokemon could not be used in multiple entries of the card format. You could however have an entry for the regular card and Pokemon ex card format using the same Pokemon. Other Pokemon could not be present with the Pokemon that is the main focus of the artwork.
One thing I never understand as an artist is that how someone can use ai and then win and then feel proud of themselves like do you even feel good with yourself for winning a contest with a piece you didn’t make yourself😭
None of the ones that didn't get picked were bad😟 they were all so beautiful! It's sucks they didn't get picked but now I have a few more artists to fellow😊
For the eevees, the tuft on top of eevee's head is really the best indicator that its not by a human artist. We ALWAYS use references. ESPECIALLY for a contest or something we want to submit into. Just to be in case we draw the subject properly right? So the fact that the fur on top of eevee's head is ALWAYS different for all 3 of the eevees submission. If its a artist referencing from a eevee image, even if its a veteran eevee artist, the way they draw the eevee's fur should NOT change that much cus the artist would have a preference on how they draw eevee and how they draw as a style. Even if theyre drawing a eevee with the uncommon hairstyles like the ones they shown on the anime, it should not look so.....in the middle of common and uncommon uncanny boundary for their submissions.
As much as I want it to, I don’t think AI is ever going away, so if they want to compete, they need to compete in separate in separate competitions or categories.
Just with the last name I knew the artist is clearly faking things, that's the last name from an episode of "the most popular girl in school" 😂 Ashley Kachadorian, she's in charge of snacks
AI companies should be obligated to keep a repository of all generated pieces on PUBLIC DISPLAY so you can confirm that it wasn’t made by a human and then be able to like reverse image search through it
Art Contests should now require to submit the recording of at least a part of the working process, or the picture at each stage of the workflow to make sure it isn't AI generated. (Yes you can generate unfinished art but it'd be almost impossible to generate an entire workflow without contradictions between stages)
I wouldnt wanna call it "ai art" its missing the soul that actual artists put into their drawings, in all reality they should be referred to as "Ai imagery"
This is criminal. For example, if you are going to use AI, use it as a tool or to get a reference that you can't seem to find but to use it as "Art." The fact that the actual amazing artist didn't make it?! They had so much soul and heart into each piece. I believe art contests from now on would need to show how it was made.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
I hate how non artists are judges of this art contests, cause there's no way a artist wouldn't see it
The fact that ANY art contest would have a panel of judges without atleast ONE artist on the panel.... is genuinely depressing to me.
Kids mostly buys the Pokémon cards
@@DLAXTOX and kids deserve better.
That's simply not true. On their official rules page, it lists the judges for the contest. In addition to the President of TPCi and a few Directors of the TCG, there are members of the Illustration team, Art Design Team, Art Director, Senior Art Director, four names Illustrators, and a special judge, the National Craft Museum Director.
To say that "non artists" are judging this contest is simply untrue, and a quick scroll through the official rules page disproves that claim.
@@ashefauxe3369 Several members of the judging team are artists. Check the official rules for the contest.
“I want AI to do my laundry and dishes, so that I can do my art projects, not the other way around.”
Damn thats cold
So real
"I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes,"
~Joanna Maciejewska
Best part is AI wasn't allowed: but non-artists judged it and couldn't tell the difference :) actual talented artists losing out to super garbage is just disgusting. I hope they reconsider and recount.
Mmhm
You realize that just means ai is as good or better than a lot of "artists" 😆
@spidernoir9845 no it itsnt better than a lot of artists because it still has imperfections and let's not forget ai art generators steal from other artists art😐
@spidernoir9845 The whole point of competition was to create a chance for artists to have their art placed on a card. if they wanted to have just a cool artwork, they would hire an artist.
@@spidernoir9845 Ummmmm probably because the system was purposefully fed the work of specific, legendary artists to mash together ? You shlt on real artists AS IF AI imagery-cobbling would even EXIST without these people who were ROBBED. Stuld sIut.
Digital art contests should have a requirement to send in their PSD files for proof that contestants actually drew it themselves. There’s no way that AI images can win with that. Problem solved
The thing is pokemon tcg art contest allows non digital art forms to be submitted in which psds can be impossible
@@lochelcyanide639 Take progress photos then. If you are doing a painting, take a photo at the halfway mark. If you are doing a clay figure, take a photo of the base shape before you start adding details. It can be doable.
That’s the thing though, ai art can very realistically replicate progress photos now which means they’d just sneak by again anyway.
conventions ask for progress pictures AND speedpaint, with also your layers to be sure it's not ai
@@lochelcyanide639 is easier to prove something isn't AI when is traditional, because you can take photos of weird angles
Imagine if that AI artist won, and then the judges say "We wanna see how you draw your art Live, for all the Pokemon lovers out there". That AI artist is going straight downhill from there.
FUK YEAH POKEMON TAKE THIS IDEA AS A DIEHARD POKEMON FAN ID PAY TO SEE THAT
Omg that actually is a really cool idea. Obviously in the context of here it’s “oh, we’re exposing “ai artists””, but it would also be a way to engage with the community more directly with a joint livestream. Maybe even go all the way and let them show up on stage with official pokemon artists and have like a joint art piece as a memorabilia of the event.
I can see the AI user type into their programm 😂 "cute pikachu sitting on a tree" and that's it hahaha
dont call them artists, call them AI Bros or AI Douchebags
"nice I love the Eevee drawing you just did, now draw a hisuian zorua"
This is so disappointing. AI generated imagery shouldn't even be allowed to be referred to as "art", because it isn't. Don't let people who generate AI images refer to themselves as artists. This person is clearly cheating by means of using name variations, but also, taking good slots from more deserving ACTUAL artists.
@@DLAXTOX might as well call yourself a chef when you put a frozen dinner in the microwave. Yes it's still "food" but you are no "chef" for microwaving a frozen dinner.
I've always been very specific in referring to AI Generated images as images or imagery, rather than as art. "AI art" is just a misleading term, It implies artistry, it assumes effort that wasn't there.
@@DLAXTOX
that would've been a good comparison if you were actually cooking something. You aren't. You're making the equivalent of instant ramen or microwave hamburger. You're simply typing in words/numbers to have the machine do it for you. You would be more akin to a client than anything.
@@DLAXTOX The word you're looking for is "chef," and no, telling a robot to make dinner for you doesn't make you one.
@@DLAXTOX It's not. There is no skill, effort, or talent involved in typing words into a box, nor is there anything "artistic" about a computer algorithm scumming google and other image sources, taking multiple images that it doesn't even have permission to use, and slapping pieces of them together into a soulless amalgamation of pixels to make something vaguely resembling "art".
AI generated imagery is not art, and people who type words into a generator are not artists.
Your comparison to cooking also falls horrendously short, as has already been pointed out.
The fact you keep having to say you arent making fun of actual artists 😭 AI artists arent artists we should get to make fun of them unapologetically
its cause of yesterdays video 😅
TRUEEE, ai image users really should be put to shame so they stop doing these scummy practices
At this point making fun and roasting AI artists is an art form itself
Like oh hey watch me put this AI bro to shame with professor grammar, eerily dramatic poetry and peak comedy
Yep, but ai steal arts from someone else/other artist, so technically we making fun of the original artist. How ai steal? Well Idk how to explain, but i once don't know anything about ai and i wanted to try, so i put my drawing to the ai And.... boom! Ai steals my art!
To be fair plenty of people will just haphazardly throw out the "your art looks AI" accusation because they don't fully understand what makes it look like AI. Even then, that can be really damning for new artists. I think it's good she made sure she wasn't giving people the wrong impression. It's important to remind people to keep nuance in mind. Plus this is clearly meant to be a teaching moment, so...yeah. gotta be an effective teacher.
Not only did this person generated their entries through AI, but they circled around the "max 3 entries per person" rule by submitting with DIFFERENT NAMES that are still awfully similar so, like, I'm speechless about their level of disrespect for the whole contest and other contestants. Wtf
Ah ALSO it's likely that "Weihang Ye"'s submissions with the sleeping pikachus are AI so it's not 6 slots being stolen but EIGHT
They probably made even more accounts and submitted even more pictures under different names.
OH MY HECK. thank you so much @Katliente for showing my Eevee piece!! as well as bringing attention to the issue and trying to show people what to look for with AI art!
Your eevee was so edible ngl
Lol thanks!
I LOVED IT!!! It was so cute!!
Eevee was adorable!!
It's beautiful! I really like how well the fuzz is drawn especially on the pillow
As someone who almost entered this contest and spent a month just coming up with concepts alone, it absolutely pisses me off that this person not only very clearly broke the 3 submissions rule, but used AI slop to do it, and then managed to take top spots from legitimately talented people who are infinitely more deserving.
I don't think hating on artists is ever ok, however, this person clearly isn't an artist. Call them a scammer, a grifter, whatever you want, but they are NOT an artist. It might be a bit harsh to say, but I genuinely think one of the only ways to stop this bullshit from pushing down real talented people is to relentlessly call them out for it. Never let them live this down, make them the example.
EDIT: I'd like to quote a passage from the official rules page for this contest: "Any attempt, successful or otherwise, by any Entrant to obtain more than the permitted number of Submissions by using multiple and/or different identities, forms, registrations, addresses or any other method will void all of that Entrant’s Submissions and that Entrant may be disqualified at Sponsors’ reasonable discretion."
This person is in clear violation, and as such ALL of their submissions should accordingly be disqualified. I'd also like to point out that this contest isn't JUST to have your art made into a real card. There are actual cash prizes for the winners, as laid out on their official rules page. Grand Prize gets $5,000, Best Standard and Best ex Illustrations get $3,000, 6 First Place Runners Up get $1,000, and 15 Judge's Award Winners get $500.
So not only are they violating the rules, but they are potentially taking away real cash prizes from people actually deserving of them. Don't think this is JUST some silly card contest.
yeah ugh it's so frustrating! i showed some artists pieces and they clearly looked so thought out and detailed and must've taken so long...and then there's this guy ;-;
I feel like people also don't understand that those people actually steal from others because an AI only functions with input (input from other drawings of other artists). So this person wasn't actually just violating the rules and taking away price money from actual artists, they actually scammed with stolen art which, in my opinion, is just unfair and disgusting.
Use it for personal stuff, I don't care about that but don't make it commercial or call yourself an "artist" with stolen art.
I spent months as well working on stuff. I didn’t have time to finish and gave up on it, glad I didn’t waste my time and I certainly won’t enter any in the future.
@@mrs.quills7061 I'd love to enter in the future, but only if TPCi acknowledges this issue and actively works to make sure it doesn't happen in the future. Which let's be real, they probably won't.
i mean if ai art is beating legit artists whenthere is so much to criticize that says alot. A good artist should have no issue creating something better than ai. Now while i agree they should be banned and ai art has no place in competitions and should be watermarked its crazy that its on top lol. While i thought the AI art did look awesome there is so much better art that didnt make it that i would vote for. Imo these contests should be voted on byy the people instead of judges and stuff like this would be spotted.
I’m hoping enough people bring attention to that and get them disqualified
Same
Haven't there been retroactive disqualifications / revocations before?
even if it wasn’t AI simply going over the entry limit should get them disqualified at this point, thats whats really getting me even non-artist judges can look at these names an go “wait…🤨”
True but I'm curious how many Other entries are AI. I'm thinking the only reason Vigo here was caught, was because Real artist's spotted the AI pieces and realized a Deja Vu moment multiple times with the name similarities. So there's probably other scammers on there that submitted the 3 pieces, but are actually AI pieces. Also, are Actual artist's of the PTC company analyzing over these submissions or is it Also AI "checking" the artwork/AI pieces? Like how RUclips has AI "checking" reported videos and comments and nothing Actually gets done about a problem. 😑
fr
Dont even call it art, its an image
Correction: Artificial Rendered Image
It does look great
@@DLAXTOX Yeah, AI generated images look "great"...until you actually look closely and realize "Hold up, some things don't look right, here"
@@LittleParody that's expect if we are looking for a particular art method or style.
it gets the idea across perfectly and that is, what matters🤷🏿♂🤷🏿♂
@@JArt872 AI images are Generated, not rendered. there is a huge difference between Generation and Rendering. Generated images comes from Noise and algorithms. Rendered (or image syntesis) images comes from 2d or 3D modelated simulators that turn them into photo realistic or non realistic images.
Can we STOP calling AI images "art". ART by definition is the following:
the expression or application of HUMAN creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
Ai can NOT create art, it just imitates it. AI "artists" are not artist. They arent even innovative. They are imitators looking for an easy way out of hard work and dedication...
Exactly, they are Ai images not art.
Dont play semantics you get what they mean
@@derpkipper dont care.
thank you, yes
@@bearswagger150 nor do we. but you all get up in arms an whine alot so maybe.. you do care?
thank you so much for featuring my card artworks!! i did the eevee with the croissant/flygon with the clover/magician absol!! one of my followers let me know i was in your video, this was such a lovely treat to see. you are very well spoken and kind ^_^
I love those ones especially eevee
Tbh, this competition organizer and judges are the problem here.
Not apparently understanding any art is one thing, the fact they didn't vet the name, the scrutiny on the art quality and inconsistency, that is a far bigger crime
No, it's worse than that. These are two symptoms of the same crime: a crime against humanity.
Ai art should be banned for art contests
AI "art" should be banned everywhere
Ai should be banned globally and be a violation of a Geneva convention
@@Ekraelum yes! It’s considering bc people have died bc of Ai nude images
@@BluelStar died? tf?
I heard about people unaliving themselves because of this
Just another example of how the ONLY ai "artist" one can be -Is a SCAM ARTIST.
Fake imagery for art thieves and wannabes. A fraudsters dream.
Lmao you are just bothered that people are chosing ai art over something someone like you would make, most people wouldn't know or care that that's ai
@@spidernoir9845 skilless individual spotted
@@nah-e9o yeah, you :p considering you are probably not good enough to be an artist, not good enough to use an ai and not even good at saying something witty 😂
@@spidernoir9845 okay? Man why are you even here. You don’t even draw like this is so pathetic
@@spidernoir9845 literally anyone ever can use an AI shut the fuck up
I'm a digimon TCG player, don't really do Pokémon. But that first Eevee on the cushion should have made it. That is a TCG illustration if I've ever seen one. Just the thought of a Terriermon, Lopmon, maybe even a Gatomon, drawn like that for an alt art? It would be a winners prize at locals. So many of these were just amazing for card arts and it's genuinely upsetting they didn't make it. I can just imagine how awesome that first Absol would look as a foil.
And the Feraligator! Alligators carry their babies in their mouths and on their heads, so it's actually putting the pokemon in a real life setting.
Agreed! I’m not super into the DCG (my only card is a Guilmon I got at a shop with my brother because it’s my favorite Digimon), but seeing adorable card art online like Meicoomon and Morphomon makes me appreciate cozier artwork. I’ve always loved the cuter looking cards, and I remember back around Gen 6, there would be cards with little charms on the side with the description at the bottom telling a little story from the Pokémon’s perspective. That Eevee should’ve gotten in! It could’ve fit with those so well (if they still do those)!
I play the DCG on and off and focus on the PTCG, but the absolute quality of the card art in the DCG is insane! Pokémon sure has stepped up their game these past few years but the people at digimon are not playing. Stunning card after stunning card
6:38 love how the A.I. is having trouble with luvdisc cause it’s confusing it for a heart doodles
the true ai poison
yea it's actually pretty funny
these were drawn by a person, not the ai itself
looking at ai images made me think now of how my math teacher would say "i want to see how you got to the answer not just the answer in itself". when i see art i dont just see the finished picture but i also try and see the steps of how it was made, ig i cant help but to do that as an artist myself xD. and so i find myself thinking when i see an odd looking picture "if i were to draw something similar would i draw it like that?". and when i see tracers who make fake sketches, im like 'but where are the guidelines?'.
exactly! I like art because theres someone behind it. It’s enjoyable to look at the art because you can actually dissect the artists choices and style, and understand why they would draw certain things a certain way. Its enjoyable because you can see and know the amount of work that goes into it. And often times they will share their work in progresses etc which i love
The years of practice and observation it takes to even do a simple sketch is what makes it art
Ai art is so soulless
I also like to say that current AI algorithms don't strictly know what anything "is" so much as what it "looks like", because for the most part they are _explicitly_ getting trained on finished results.
Exactly
Yep
just a question in this scenario : would you rather do complex math by writing out lines one by one to 'show your work', or by using a calculator that will give you a roughly correct answer in 5 seconds? I would say both, why deny the calculator? Even if you're trying to get the 'perfect answer' and can't trust the calculator, it can still be useful in the process. There seems to be a lot of misplaced hate towards the 'ai' and its users imo.
Honestly a stupid easy way to avoid this kind of stuff in contests is to just- ask for screenshots of the layers of the art program when submitting or even the file itself?
Im suprised that with the recent surge in AI stuff that isnt considered as a method to make sure people like this don't slip into spaces for ACTUAL artists (and by this, i mean people who create the work themselves. Doesnt matter how skilled you are, if youre making the work yourselves than I have a hell of a lot more respect for you than people who just plug stuff into AI to try and get undeserved rewards. o7 Good luck on your art journeys ya'll)
That’s why some companies in Japan will ask artists for analog artworks that way they can be certain that the artist can actually draw. There are even some companies that require you to draw on spot. Same goes for art university. You are literally required to draw its part of the exam.
@@linboh2664 Oh yeah, I know. Going to an art university right now actually! It's pretty infuriating to see some of the teachers there promoting this AI stuff
@@Vipadra I’m in an art school as well not university but it’s a lot more tech focused with us learning 3d CG, video editing, photoshop, photography, programming, and etc. Yes teachers do encourage us to use AI but more as a tool to help us do things more efficiently helping us cut time down on unnecessary but time consuming tasks. But beyond that they don’t recommend using AI. Also AI art is pretty easy to spot for a professional artist even non artists can point out certain disfigurement like the infamous AI hands for example. I also wanted to use some artworks as reference and looked up on SNS only to find an AI illustration that literally did not make any sense anatomy wise. I tried tracing the artwork to try and figure out the logic behind it only to realize that there was none.
They don't request upon submission. What they do is request when they are doing the final rounds of judging. The reason is because the working file shows a lot with process, and basically shows a lot of the "secrets" to how they work (if there are any), plus other things such as assets that can be ripped off and used elsewhere. You don't typically offer these things up without some type of an exchange/benefit. The fewer people contests do this to, the better. WiP layer screenshots are a bit more common for preliminary checks if someone is trying to lay accusations of stealing someone else's work, but that's when you get things like social media and forums for people to start flinging mud around
@@linboh2664AI illustrations aren't discouraging for people in art school because it's used in said art school.
They're discouraging for people in art school because it's basically like going to school to be a telephone operator or attendant at a full service gas station.
The biggest issue with those contests is how it's all about the flashiest visuals rather than the general feel of the art. That circle absol that didn't make it looks *insane* and reminds me a lot of some of my favorite cards to collect (there's a super fuzzy and stylized absol and I love it so much) so many of the "losing" entries have so much going for it, but the AI messes have the most flair at a glance
I'm so happy you uploaded this and talked about other entries as well!
I would put every single piece of artwork through an Ai art check. A girl in my group submitted AI art for our project because she was too lazy to do the work herself.
Those detectors are not completely accurate; in fact they're often inaccurate, and lots of real, legitimate artists have been dogpiled now because people just run a thing through Hive and go "Oh, okay, that's true then."
Nah cuz I put my art through one and it said it was ai💀 those things inaccurate
Ya i have seen art i know was not ai get caught by those things and art that was ai not get caught
Absolutely not, ai companies also own those.
While I agree, I've seen actual artists put their art through AI detectors and it comes out as a positive--because people used their art to train models :') sadly it won't do much
this person probably snuck in even more entries before they picked the 300 entries, they just picked 6 out of who knows how many. it not only sucks that they were picked and other artists weren't, but any tcg art contests going forward, there are going to be artists who will be skeptical on how much time/consideration/discernment each entry gets or if the judges even care. I understand that they get flooded with entries, but they also had months to go through them
This dude also just blatantly stole some fanart of the Vaporeon in the drowning Eevee pic, people have found the original in the comments of that original twitter threat. And speaking of that AI image, why is that eevee shooting a light beam from it's paws?? lmao
There's another vaporeon that looks to be in the same style in another eevee picture that is under a different name as well
eevee paw laser beam move
Can't someone report this to the judges?
Would be the best way, true!
Because getting offended by this and only yell on YT about it, will not change anything
It's insane. Would people have caught on if he hadn't used the same (or similar) name for the submissions? The fact that we need artists to tell us what's wrong and show us the telltale signs reveals how easily people can be deceived by AI art. I mean, in all honesty, those pieces look great. I am no artist, nor do I know anything about art, but my first impression was "Pretty."
They probably still would have caught on anyway, I for one got a weird vibe from the artstyle, and that's when I typically do AI checks.
I think most people can tell from a glance if something is suspicious. I'm at best an amateur artist (wouldn't even call myself that). But there is just an uncanny look to AI art.
these would definitely have been caught, they just look too ai, but unfortunately, even now i’m wondering if other ai arts under a different name made it in 🥲 the ones ive looked at look amazing and very human at least!
For a layman, there are lot of ways to prove an AI.
- Check if the fingers digits are correct
- Check if there are obviously disjointed lineart somewhere despite the level of polish of the image
- Check if some parts melds or melts into each other like hair or clothes.
- Check for pattern seizures, where repeated patterns forced to places it shouldn't belong
- Check for pixelated artifacts, artists tends to use the same tool and method across an image so it shouldn't have weird QR codes or mosaic censors over a gradient
- Check if the formatting is weird. I spotted a japanese artist where they did well on the image photobashing but screwed making a rectangular magazine format where it blends and diffuses as AI does it
- Check for patterns and it's center of mass/vocal point. I seen AI did well on mimicking floral patterns but failed on structuring it like a flower should, having a flower core and petal convergence.
- Check for composition. An artist took creative liberties but not to an extent making it literally practically impossible to mimic. One example from the famous Willy Wonka scam House of Illuminati, the banquets in their reference are physically impossible to navigate or to enjoy or to physiologically imagine to attend.
- Check for background character anatomy. Artist do skip these because it's not an object of focus, but not to a degree it's monstrously anatomically incorrect.
- Check for periphery objects. Outside object of focus, AI tried to mimic how Artists reduces or mutes the side objects, but it comes with the expense of diffusing the vocal point and destroyed gradation.
- The easiest of all is their background check. If they appear out of nowhere and have no credit or signs of throwaway account, it's AI. If they do have credits or referrals or backlog of links to their portfolio including their previously bad drawings, it's and Artist.
Artists watches each others back. Words spread. It's something AI bros never understand or willing to accept with their "DiSrUpT ThE MaRkEt" agenda. I seen it myself during my IT university years. It's revolting.
@@defaulted9485 make this person check every art contest please
I only accept ai art the same way I accept game modding: personal use only that doesn't affect ANYONE.
I draw the line at using it to compete with actual artists through commissions or contests
It's like using steroids in sports or a motorcycle in the tour de france
yep. ai is fun to screw around with. sometimes it’s funny. but when you use it to scam and deceive people, you’re straight up just a loser.
Problem is that using ai image generators even for personal use still harms artists and enables art and image theft and copyright infringement. You're still telling the developers you want to use their image generation service and therefore you're okay with them wasting water, stealing images and ignoring copyright laws "because ai fun hehe" (it's literally their argument in court, while people are losing their jobs and scammers are thriving)
@@eileencrys shit you’re right. honestly i was kinda only thinking about the realistic looking ai stuff
@@eileencrysokay but idc about this shitshow enough to stop generating images of mario in the mafia, sorry
Also a thing most people forget.
Artist made art from a blank canvas.
AI generator made art from FINISHED image.
I'm pretty sure every artist I know can reverse engineer an image. Artists are just held on a wildly higher standard compared to their detractors.
I don't believe it's accurate to claim that AI generators necessarily generate results "from" their training datasets (as in, from any _specific_ example), but due to the sheer scale of computations involved (on both the pre-training AND generative ends alike) it's almost impossible to semantically "decode" how the computational network actually generates anything specific.
@@Stratelier They're essentially doing advanced photobashing using points that are recognized as "eye", "nose", mouth", "hair", etc, with various tags. Imagine if I fed you a crapton of Minecraft custom item model code, and you don't get to see it in engine, I just tell you "this worked" or "this didn't work", and you basically learn from trial and error that this bit of code makes XYZ wider, that one makes it taller, this other one is a rotation point.
You'll never actually know what the heck you spit out, just if someone is happy with the numbers you gave them, or which numbers they didn't want, with a huge reference of OTHER number sets that get called something like "Baglorble" and "Rirituly"-- you don't understand the language OR what your numbers look like to someone else, you just understand that when someone asks for a baglorble with a rirituly-shaped shothrat, you need to put this set of numbers on that set of numbers (after removing a few numbers that are associated with "shothrat").
That's how machine learning does image recognition and spits out more images.
@@Stratelier that's generally, in this case they traced out a real vaporeon fanart to put in the background.
i dont know how plausible this would be, ive never been in art competitions. but if/when someone makes it to the semi finals/finals; i think we should start asking the artists to hand over their project files for competition entries. it's literally the only way i can think of how to check if the art is AI generated. like i doubt AI scammers would bother making like photoshop or clip studio files for any reason
There are definitely cases where it's not plausible. For certain physical competitions you can make a physical print of the digital artwork, much like how with online competitions you _necessarily_ must submit a digital copy (scan/photo) of an otherwise physical artwork.
I'm leery of AI checkers because they aren't accurate a concerning amount of the time. We really need a way that isn't machine learning itself to test for machine learning.
i agree, but i think the content of this video (and her other videos) are very accurate. as a professional artist, she has a lot of experience that is helpful in spotting ai, *AND* she emphasizes that only with multiple examples of ai-esque mistakes or tells are you able to say with certainty that an image is ai generated. duchess celestia has a great video (how to spot ai art) about this that i think you might be interested in
When submitting work ppl need to start including wips, ai can’t replicate the stages in a way that makes sense
@@lit_kzh Ya I think at best these are edge cases of either assisted works or works from popularly sampled artists.
I myself am okay at identifying faked images but I also don't put much stock into it unless there's meta evidence (multiple works, past history, no history, etc.) And worst comes to worst I as a casual observer can just block anything that even remotely seems like it was fake and move on.
@@Yokolite94 Nah they can fake those too. You can directly generate (either officially in Adobe or unofficially in other products) and save as a workfile or just keep the generation to the invisible planning stages.
That's honestly the worst part of this all. Not only is it antithetical to the creative process, but you can camo it in so many ways that this is going to be a new entry in the tech sector Whack-a-mole-a-thon.
@@RobertStoll ai art generation is so disappointing. on one hand, i'm excited to see it grow and become more accurate, more useful to artists, more fun, etc. on the other hand, i detest its affect on literally everything it touched after the first dall-e demos, and i hate that its profitable and is both devaluing artists and taking away their opportunities. overall i think its a huge net negative to human creativity and it seems to only get worse, i can only hope for a better future
19:26 a real artist most likely would make a big c shape, then cut with the eraser, why would you take the effort to make then separatedly? like it makes no sense
exactly!! its just a ton of extra work
I hate this because I participated in the event and didn’t even make it but to see the AI in the top 300 just broke a part of my spirit
That Vaporeon in the "Eevee underwater" pic is so out of place with the rest of the picture. It's in a completely different style.
There's also a very good chance it's traced, the artist whose art was traced posted their Vaporeon art and the AI one is near identical in pose and linework (but worse looking)
@@zoruasnivy I saw that post yeah! It was near identical to their work, really disheartening to see because their Vaporeon art is really cute :(
Honestly I'm appaled these ""artworks"" were approved, because even pretending they're real art, they still don't fit the requirement for the portrayed Pokemon to be completely compliant with the canon design. As you pointed out, Eevee doesn't have the right amoung of spikes on the inside of one ear in the cherry blossoms pic, and the spike on the bottom part of its ears in the mountains picture also are a big mistake that makes it look more like a Jolteon.
I'm shook they'd approve artworks that aren't fit for one of the rules they themselves established for entries.
I think the biggest giveaway that it's ai art is it's so insanely "polished". The one thing that makes me instantly detect something as ai art is when there's this full insanely skillful rendered artwork and then there's little random art mistakes on the hands, eyes, tail, etc.
Yes, artists can get lazy and mess up. But someone who can show THAT much skill 4 times in a row isn't going to blob up humans and mess up pikachu's 4 fingered hand.
What astounds me is that they most likely had 4 accounts sending things, so 12 entries… And still none of it was caught. Am also disappointed there hasn’t been a proper statement on this…
I wager that Rob Liefeld is a good example for great rendering and horrific anatomy made by a human artist. Funny part is that he illustrated for Marvel, so he achieved what AI artists can't: actual financial success and artistic recognition.
AI art on a fucking pokémon card is demented
art is to be witnessed, not to be drawn. no one cares if you lose job
@@f0kes32 and no one will care if you lose yours either
@@theawsomehawk2749 i know
@@f0kes32 you mad weird lmaooo saying you basically want artists to lose ur job cuz u have no skills
@@f0kes32 who says no one cares? they are a lot of artists an other people that care a lot and are exposing people who abuses the use of ai and making tools of recognition of ai art and to protect artist drawings from it. Also why being rude with people that are doing nothing wrong?
i hate it because from what ive seen its just
"Hey there's AI artists in the pokemon competition. anyways heres my art that didnt get in" and then they show the most beautiful delectable art piece with the best quality your eyes have ever perceived
The barely different, vaguely Russian sounding pen names are also a pretty big giveaway. I bet those were AI generated too. Probably ran a bot to generate all of it and enter automatically.
honestly? this fiasco may be my push to finally learn drawing, primarily cuz I've wanted to do it for a while, but now more than ever with an added layer of spite for AI art bros
Art is so fun :-) if you do give it a go i hope you enjoy it
We should really start calling ai “art” ai images it doesn’t do justice to actual artists
Not me noticing that 'Khachadoorian' is the same name as a character from 'most popular girls in school' LMAO
Ashley , what are you doing submitting AI pokemon art to a contest?? You're supposed to be watching the door!!
I was hoping to find this in the comments😂
Ashley Khachadoorian: I was at Pearl Harbor
Trisha: Your AI images gave everyone a Pearl Harbor!
Yo I immediately saw that
She's a pencil! She's a Swizzle Stick! You can use her as a pool noodle! And now I'm holding up her arms!! ARMS!!!
14:22 "Pikachu with one nut." IM HOLLERINGG😭😭
Barbie doll anatomy
The AI Art Companies need to do their own watermark to show off the handiwork of the AI Art AND make the watermark as hard to edit out as possible.
A photo won an AI Art contest before it got disqualified for being too real. So, ideas are possible.
The problem is, there isn't just one program that makes AI images, there are many, and they would hardly do that, and it's very unlikely that any big AI company will do that either, they end up losing customers
Can we stop calling those people "artists"? thanks :3
I mean the ai kinda ate 😭not the cheater
@@sc0tty_dog.The way it didnt
@@sc0tty_dog.The ai ate what? Shit?
@@Cuyite can y’all relax 💀 it’s not perfect drawings but I didn’t realise I was in the presence of an art master cause If you think some of the flaws it made was bad try looking at regular people’s art like 💀
@@princeapoopoo5787 can y’all relax 💀 it’s not perfect drawings but I didn’t realise I was in the presence of an art master cause If you think some of the flaws it made was bad try looking at regular people’s art like 💀
For the one with the Auroras, some of them literally come out of the ground, too
On the left, theres light coming from the ground, lmao
Update - The Pokemon Company just released a statement that confirms that some entries violated the contest rules and will be disqualifying them. They have not yet specified who will be removed from the top 300 and the alleged artwork is still on the contest website. But at least the company is moving forward with finding real artists to replace the AI entries.
Calling them an artist in the title is being very generous considering it’s the program doing all the work.
Fun fact, all of those pieces where disqualified
The thing is, human art has a soul. You can see that there's emotion behind it. Ai art is just so,so wrong. It's dead, empty, uncanny valley vibe. Even the mistakes in human art are human. Like, they make sense! The mistakes in ai don't. Ai art makes me feel sad :(
That Vaporeon in the V-K art is STOLEN from an actual artist. It isn't their actual style. That is art from a legit artist that was stolen by V-K for their AI submission. This will probably be lost in a sea of comments, but whoever sees this: please please please show the artist who drew the Vaporeon support. They did not know or consent to their art being stolen.
I think this is the prompters actual style. They just used an AI filter to "render" their artwork. I have seen some random guy's channel who posted his "process" who did exactly that
@filiprafaelcichonski2948 I wish I could link the account but it'll get deleted. But the artist for the Vaporeon made a tweet saying their art was stolen for AI and they never entered the contest.
The one that broke my heart was the artist that fully needle felted the pokemon and made a background set for a flygon card art submission and it was GORGEOUS
After a certain point, art/music/game development contests are going to start REQUIRING recorded footage of creating your submissions so that they can look through that of selected winners for verification.
Or at least showing WIP or pencil sketches for poof
I know some softwares like Porcreate have a speed draw feature
@@thegiftedfire3470 the issue is what they're supposed to do if those sketches are created by tracing though. Without seeing the WHOLE thing be made, there's no way of knowing for sure
I’d be worried if I made my piece without recording, I could post all my frames and zoom ins of the drawing maybe?
Supreme court ruled that you cannot copyright ai art because there isn't enough human input behind it to be man-made
For non-artists who want to tell what is AI, the video I watched before this did a simple trick: use the dropper tool and hover over the colors, specifically the highlights. If you see the colors drastically changing across the color spectrum- colors that no real person would even think of choosing, it’s gotta be AI. For example, hovering over Eevee who is mostly orange and yellow, and the dropper detects blue or purple or green
Even a non artist knows, rain would fall in the same direction, instead of randomly shooting everywhere 😆
I think art contests nowadays (especially for digital art) should require their wip images or some sort of proof that they actually did it. My art prof always reminds us to send her the final image with the raw files since she wants to know who actually does the art and who is just using ai to create in our class.
I hate ai bros
Fire them into the sun.
Specially people who use AI and try to pass it as handmade one. If you want to create AI without gaining money and more of a curiosity putting the prompts , well, whatever.
As long as you don't consider yourself at the same level as actual artists and you support them somehow.
But they tried to win a contest using that. You didn't do it, it was a machine and machines can't compete with real people, it's demented. I saw dudes saying that actual artists are dumb for doing art and that we all should get erased and replaced with AI instead of being a tool or another medium (like it happened with digital art, since traditional artists still exist and they are well recognised and appreciated). They are one of the worst types of AI bros
Artists are deliberate. Someone who's spent any time making backgrounds, excessively render, master line work and compose a shot in fish eye - every single stroke, the artist would be aware of - especially if they're in a HUGE contest with a massive sample size. Every stroke of a brush is made and the artist has to make effort to put pen on paper. Someone who's making a 'deeper meaning' art piece would have drawn more attention to the person that's up in the rafters, if they were the trainer.. they'd make it clear.
AI is not art and people that use AI are not artists.
the fact alone that the judges just let six really similar names with "drawings" that look almost like variations through, is beyond my understanding
It's so fucking disheartening how you can not look at art nowadays anymore and get excited at how cool or pretty it looks, because of how high the chances are that some dumb asshole made the plagarism bot spit it out in 20 seconds.
It takes away so much of the fun that art used to bring me
That really is the one thing AI can never replicate. The heart and soul of creativity.
The difference between a human beginner and between AI is that a human makes mistakes because of their skill level, AI makes logic mistakes like combining completely nonsensical things like fading a hand into the face, or just not understanding space and treating an overlapped element as two elements.
Sure a human can make some of these mistakes, but they aren't making logic mistakes because they don't understand that a hand isn't apart of the face.
The sad part is how no one in the comitee cares enough to actually check the art. Artist put hours, days into their entry. Contest hosts way too often prove, that they don't care...
AI is just the small problem. The huge problem is that they were able to sneak in 6... 6! entries and no one cared to check. All the articles being angry at AI, when we should be more angry that someone gave in 6 entries and the hosts didn't care to look at possibly any of the 300 entries for more than just a second...
As impressive as AI "art" might look at first, it can't fake proper fundamentals. No matter how much people will try, proper art has structure, even if you're a beginner artist that's still something you will have no matter how you approach your art
The most annoying and dangerous part is people disregarding it as not even being art of good, there will come a time when it will be virtually indistinguishable from art created by real human artists because it is stolen from real artists. The "mostakes" could be used to describe actual drawing ls made by a human
I kept hearing people say "AI art has no soul" and I did not quite understand what they meant by "soul." But this video helped me understand. When art has soul, it's about how each element in the piece has intent behind it, how someone added an element in the piece to communicate additional meaning-- thusly creating a dialogue between the artist and the viewer. The AI art might look pretty on the surface, but, especially in the background elements, items are added in without the intent to convey an idea. Like you pointed out, what is the point in adding the drowning Luvdisc? The random person in the lights? These details add nothing to the piece, or even muddle the effect of the final piece.
Contrast that to the backgrounds in all the other human-made art you shared, the sleeping Eevee is by a sun-dappled window with a gently flowing curtain to convey the comfortable environment. The snow in the Absol piece was deliberately drawn in a circular pattern to add motion that communicates the dynamic movements of Absol's swipe.
Appreciate this video for providing a definition to the word "soul" in terms of art. It gave me a lot to think about, as an artist myself.
AI ""artists"" taking away opportunities from the same people who drew to power the algorithms that make their images in the first place is so upsetting and disappointing. Unfortunately many non-artists aren't as critical of shit like this bc they don't know what to look for or what distinguishes computer slop from digital artwork 💔
the luvdisc trying to kts was pretty funny tho
You know whats worse?
People who defend it say its "Enhancing Art" and that you should embrace it.
Im afraid what happens in the following years
6:10 something I noticed about this piece in particular is how the tail looks like it's not even attached to the body 😭
wait that's so true omg T_T
In competitions such as these, I feel like a requirement for providing some type of documentation alongside the art piece
(such as a video, art file, or collection of screenshots, etc) in which the process of the artwork can be seen as it is being worked on, would help cut down on the amount of AI Imagery quite a bit.
That eevee dreaming about its Eeveelutions and eevee running with a croissant makes me so sad that the potential ai art winning above them.
I assumed the person was skilled enough to edit some parts to fix the obvious errors, especially for an intermediate eye, but no matter how much they try, the overall image and those similar names just sus
In addition to what you said, in the "Drowning Eevee" picture, if you look at vaporeon the shading of it makes it feel almost flat and almost after-thoughty compared to how the eevee is rendered. And both pictures that have an added 'vaporeon' seem to have that quality. Even the lovediscs seem to be in a different style/rendering.
The amount of people in the comments trying to defend this AI sham is concerning, the evidence is pretty damning to anyone trained in art
As an artist this hurts my art soul. I've seen so many AI art pages gets so much recognition to the point where ppl prefer it over actual artist who spend hours just to be overlooked by a non artistic person using AI. It's very discouraging...
Another sad element of this is all the artists who spent hundreds and thousands of hours learning how to draw, that these AI submissions are stealing elements from without crediting those artists.
The submissions you showed that didn't get in are far more full of life and character than the generic AI images
They wouldn't if those artists were good, the only people that are bothered about ai are the ones that are mediocre and try to feel better by saying they put "effort" on their art
@@spidernoir9845 what?
@@twist_ending7545 it's very easy to get what I said :p just put some of the effort that you don't use on your bad art and you'll be able :)
@@spidernoir9845 and are you trying to feel better by calling them mediocre and bringing people down?
Even if the judges couldn't tell if the entries were AI or not, they could at least tell that there were a number of other violations. For one, anyone could submit a limited number of entries, and the same Pokemon could not be used in multiple entries of the card format. You could however have an entry for the regular card and Pokemon ex card format using the same Pokemon. Other Pokemon could not be present with the Pokemon that is the main focus of the artwork.
One thing I never understand as an artist is that how someone can use ai and then win and then feel proud of themselves like do you even feel good with yourself for winning a contest with a piece you didn’t make yourself😭
None of the ones that didn't get picked were bad😟 they were all so beautiful! It's sucks they didn't get picked but now I have a few more artists to fellow😊
I said it once and I'll repeat it. Can't someone report this to the judges?
For the eevees, the tuft on top of eevee's head is really the best indicator that its not by a human artist. We ALWAYS use references. ESPECIALLY for a contest or something we want to submit into.
Just to be in case we draw the subject properly right? So the fact that the fur on top of eevee's head is ALWAYS different for all 3 of the eevees submission.
If its a artist referencing from a eevee image, even if its a veteran eevee artist, the way they draw the eevee's fur should NOT change that much cus the artist would have a preference on how they draw eevee and how they draw as a style.
Even if theyre drawing a eevee with the uncommon hairstyles like the ones they shown on the anime, it should not look so.....in the middle of common and uncommon uncanny boundary for their submissions.
At this point, art contests should include video entries of artists actually drawing their art from scratch.
Hey! I found your channel recently and I’ve been pretty hooked by the videos you do 🫶
Same!!! I love the tea
Love your persona 4 pfp
@@ieatanimaljamplushies AYY PERSONA 4 IS THE GOAT
YO SAMEE !!! I like listening to her videos while I'm doing tasks and stuff lol
ahhh yay!! I’ve been grinding these videos out so I’m glad u like them!! ❤
they are not artists just call them frauds
AI generators maybe
I hope he gets disqualified!
We need to continue calling out these frauds so that real artist get credit for all the work they put in
As much as I want it to, I don’t think AI is ever going away, so if they want to compete, they need to compete in separate in separate competitions or categories.
Maybe they should have submitted sketches and the final product to prove the work
Just with the last name I knew the artist is clearly faking things, that's the last name from an episode of "the most popular girl in school" 😂 Ashley Kachadorian, she's in charge of snacks
It's so sad how these ai users don't realize how pathetic they look, I almost feel sorry for them.
AI companies should be obligated to keep a repository of all generated pieces on PUBLIC DISPLAY so you can confirm that it wasn’t made by a human and then be able to like reverse image search through it
Art Contests should now require to submit the recording of at least a part of the working process, or the picture at each stage of the workflow to make sure it isn't AI generated.
(Yes you can generate unfinished art but it'd be almost impossible to generate an entire workflow without contradictions between stages)
Moral of the story: if you have no skills, don't use AI. Learn about art.
don't contests like this usually ask for the PSD or WIPs?
I wouldnt wanna call it "ai art" its missing the soul that actual artists put into their drawings, in all reality they should be referred to as "Ai imagery"
This is criminal. For example, if you are going to use AI, use it as a tool or to get a reference that you can't seem to find but to use it as "Art." The fact that the actual amazing artist didn't make it?! They had so much soul and heart into each piece.
I believe art contests from now on would need to show how it was made.